Transcutaneous spinal stimulation in people with and without spinal cord injury: Effect of electrode placement and trains of stimulation on threshold intensity

Author:

Finn Harrison T.12,Bye Elizabeth A.123,Elphick Thomas G.12,Boswell‐Ruys Claire L.123,Gandevia Simon C.134,Butler Jane E.12,Héroux Martin E.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Neuroscience Research Australia Randwick New South Wales Australia

2. School of Biomedical Sciences University of New South Wales New South Wales Kensington Australia

3. Prince of Wales Hospital Randwick New South Wales Australia

4. School of Clinical Medicine University of New South Wales New South Wales Kensington Australia

Abstract

AbstractTranscutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSS) is purported to improve motor function in people after spinal cord injury (SCI). However, several methodology aspects are yet to be explored. We investigated whether stimulation configuration affected the intensity needed to elicit spinally evoked motor responses (sEMR) in four lower limb muscles bilaterally. Also, since stimulation intensity for therapeutic TSS (i.e., trains of stimulation, typically delivered at 15–50 Hz) is sometimes based on the single‐pulse threshold intensity, we compared these two stimulation types. In non‐SCI participants (n = 9) and participants with a SCI (n = 9), three different electrode configurations (cathode–anode); L1‐midline (below the umbilicus), T11‐midline and L1‐ASIS (anterior superior iliac spine; non‐SCI only) were compared for the sEMR threshold intensity using single pulses or trains of stimulation which were recorded in the vastus medialis, medial hamstring, tibialis anterior, medial gastrocnemius muscles. In non‐SCI participants, the L1‐midline configuration showed lower sEMR thresholds compared to T11‐midline (p = 0.002) and L1‐ASIS (p < 0.001). There was no difference between T11‐midline and L1‐midline for participants with SCI (p = 0.245). Spinally evoked motor response thresholds were ~13% lower during trains of stimulation compared to single pulses in non‐SCI participants (p < 0.001), but not in participants with SCI (p = 0.101). With trains of stimulation, threshold intensities were slightly lower and the incidence of sEMR was considerably lower. Overall, stimulation threshold intensities were generally lower with the L1‐midline electrode configuration and is therefore preferred. While single‐pulse threshold intensities may overestimate threshold intensities for therapeutic TSS, tolerance to trains of stimulation will be the limiting factor in most cases.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Physiology (medical),Physiology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3